Library Politics

Mann discusses the advantages and disadvantages to the variety of ways books can be categorized and placed upon the shelf, or input into the library database. Interestingly enough, the decision on which to do could be seen as one of a political nature. I make this claim because such decisions could be made based upon simple economics, as it applies to cost. This can make research a challenging task as books maybe placed next to others with no reference to the same topic. Is this fair?

Libraries are for the public use, and usually provided at no cost (not considering tax dollars); so, when we discuss economic cost, which side do we direct the argument. One side could say that the library should be constructed to be customer friendly; after all the library is a public service institute. By just placing books on a shelf means the patron has to work harder to find the material they are seeking; hence, not economical to the individuals in society (time is considered to be a scarce resource in economic philosophy).

On the other hand, how much is the library indebted to their patrons? Sure tax dollars pay for libraries, but does that mean an institution which houses books is protected from budget cuts? In this light, the grounding argument is that the institution must cut cost to protect the institution for the public sake; hence, overlooking individual economic necessity. As a result books may have to be filed by the order they are received, instead of by topic.

Is there another option?

I think Mann overlooks a compromising element. Why can't the libraries continue to file books effectively, using the file by topic system, but cut library hours? This could be the answer of mediation, but Mann doesn't suggest it in chapter 3 if such approach has been looked into. After all, what percentage of the public uses these institution and would it really hurt them to only have access 3-4 days a week?

It will be good once the general election occurs; hopefully everything will become good again!